Some Workers Compensation Principles That Are Often Misunderstood

workers compensation form picA recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court sheds light on some common misunderstandings of the reach of workers compensation benefits.

The basic events in Hart v. Federal Express Corporation, 321 Conn. 1 (decided April 19, 2016) are not controversial.  The plaintiff was a delivery driver who experienced a debilitating combination of a large number of stops, difficult deliveries, heavy traffic and a hot day in a truck that was not air-conditioned.  He was unable to take any breaks for rest, lunch and even hydration.  Finally, at a delivery to a fire station, he called for a substitute driver and asked the fire personnel for assistance.  They found a highly accelerated heart rate and called for an ambulance.  The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with a serious heart condition.

The Workers Compensation Commission had no trouble in determining that the plaintiff’s condition was compensable because it arose out of and in the course of employment. Although his heart arrhythmia was resolved by medication, his course of treatment and related psychological issues kept him on temporary total disability for nearly a year.  In rejecting the employer’s appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court discussed some issues which illustrate what the Court called  the broad and remedial nature  of the Workers Compensation Act.

  • Pre-Existing Conditions.  The employer attempted first to appeal on the basis that the employee had a pre-existing, but asymptomatic medical condition.  However, the Court noted that a pre-existing condition which is aggravated by a workplace injury so that it becomes symptomatic and requires treatment is deemed to arise out of employment and is compensable.
  •  Psychological Injuries.  The Workers Compensation Act excludes mental or emotional impairments which result from personnel actions such as transfers, demotions or termination, or which do not result from a physical injury or emotional disease. The employee was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which the employer argued arose from earlier disciplinary warnings or from the stress of being out of work and having to pursue a legal claim.  However, the Court accepted the findings of the workers compensation commissioner that although his job loss might have aggravated the employee’s psychological condition, the emotional trauma of the cardiac event was sufficient to cause PSTD, which was therefore compensable.
  •  The Employee’s Physical Activity.  The employer appealed the  award of temporary total disability benefits  for nearly one year because the employee frequented a gym and undertook strenuous workouts during that time.  But the Court agreed with the workers compensation commissioner that although the employee had no physical restrictions as a result of his heart condition, his mental status together with the need for extensive heart monitoring justified the decision of his physicians to keep him out of work.

The take-away is that a workers compensation claim can be made even though an employee has a pre-existing condition, suffers mostly psychological  effects, or maintains an active non-work lifestyle.  As long as the assessment by the employee’s physicians is plausible, it will be accepted by the Workers Compensation Commission and not second-guessed by the courts.

Tags: Wages

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page